Albany, New York’s capitol’s city, has a proud history of political capers. What happened yesterday, the Republicans taking control of the Senate with the assistance of two Democrats, will go down as the boldest political power play.

The twists and turns of power grabs are of little concern to most of our readers (alas). You all want to know what will happen to gay marriage. A fair question, and the answer is no one knows. First contrary to popular opinion, the defection of the two Democrats, Pedro Espada Jr. of the Bronx and Hiram Monserrate of Queens, had little to do with the Senate work on marriage rights. Espada, as reported by the New York Times, is one of the co-sponsors of the legislation for same sex marriage (many of our commentators who went daft on their keyboards yesterday need to send Espada an apology). It is still unclear why Espada and Monserrate crossed over. They say it was due to their concerns about Malcolm Smith’s Senate leadership. Others, the cynical mean types, think yesterday had more to do with the legal troubles of the pair.

Some New York pols however, are still optimistic about marriage rights getting a vote.

“I believe that it’s still coming regardless of who controls the Senate,” said Assemblyman Daniel O’Donnell. “Every year more Americans and more New Yorkers support my right to a marriage license.”

Something to pay attention to is the relative silence about yesterday’s events from marriage rights advocates such as state Senator Tom Duane and the Empire State Pride Agenda. This strikes me as politically savvy. Best to wait to find out what all of the mess means before making anything public.

UPDATE: A few minutes after I posted ESPA’s executive director, Alan Van Capelle, issued a statement asking the Senate to hold a vote on the marriage bill.

“It is time to bring marriage equality and these other LGBT issues to the Senate floor for votes and have members vote their conscience. We urge the Senate to schedule these votes as soon as possible before the end of the legislative session.”

The easy part of the work is over. New York State’s Assembly passed same-sex marriage legislation last night. The vote was 89-52, an improvement over the 85-61 tally in 2007.

“Today’s vote in the Assembly in favor of same-sex civil marriage once again proved that civil rights can not and will not be denied,”  New York State senator Tom Duane said in a statement. “The eyes of the state, and indeed the nation, turn to the New York State Senate in the fight for marriage equality,”

No one really expected anything less from the Assembly. The trouble will be with the Senate; its majority leader, Malcolm Smith, isn’t sure the votes are there (one of the reasons why there were a few questions about Governor David Paterson making gay marriage a cornerstone in his agenda). Already the pressure is building upon senators from advocates.

“Your grandchildren will want to know how you voted on this important human rights issue. This is a legacy vote, ” said Empire State Pride Agenda executive director Alan Van Capelle.

It might be a “legacy vote”  but there are a number of pols who know what side they are on. And they are not into letting you and your man play Kool and the Gang at your reception.

State senator Ruben Diaz Sr. is trying to convince voters in his district he’s still a Democrat. The reverend and New York pol has been in the news recently because he, and two others, have been the road blocks to same sex marriage getting an Albany vote.

In a bright yellow flyer sent to the press and his constituents, Diaz says he is against two things: gay marriage and budget cuts (from all accounts New York is facing a budget mess). The marriage animus is not new. Diaz has a history of being against anything lavender. Once he voiced opposition to the Gay Games coming to the Big Apple because he argued the cases of AIDS would increase. Yeah, he’s not all there but this is the same guy who confused Daily News reporter Elizabeth Benjamin with New York Post columnist Liz Smith.

It makes sense Diaz would reassert his Democratic street cred because on the gay stuff he makes any GOP operative beam with pride. Diaz might be a lot of things—a homophobe who is sort of nuts—but he’s no fool. He knows no Republican is going to win an election in the Bronx.

I have nothing against Caroline Kennedy. Unlike a few of her cousins, she has kept her picture off the tabloids. From all accounts she keeps her own counsel and is one of those who knows the use of silence, a rather refreshing trait in a media culture that peddles the loud.

With that said, I’m not sure she should be picked to replace Hillary Clinton as New York’s junior senator. Sure there is the delicious irony of Kennedy, who worked hard to get Barack Obama elected, taking Clinton’s spot (it’s time I got over my issues with a certain type of Clintonista), but irony can only do so much.

Despite all the skills she brings to the table, her last name worries me. Do we need another Kennedy in the Senate? Didn’t New York have a Kennedy as senator back in the day? Are political dynasties a good thing?

Sure the rhetoric of democracy and its realities lived on the ground (we are all created equal but some are more equal than others) never match. Those vagaries can be lived with but it doesn’t mean political power should be handed over to families.

Today Diaz wanted to explain himself, but the explanation is nuttier than the original outburst. In his  release he confuses Benjamin with gossip columnist Liz Smith (she works for another paper and has some years on Benjamin), and insists he never meant to threaten anyone or any group.

He did say something in his rant  I’m going to agree with. As citizens it’s our right to voice our disapproval to our elected officials, but Diaz alleges some have crossed the line by using crude language to the people  who work his phones. Resorting to barnyard epithets in a battle of ideas cheapens the discourse and moves the debate nowhere.

It’s time for political independence peoples!

“The governor should respect New York’s marriage laws over the laws of foreign jurisdictions.  Governor Paterson is overstepping his authority and the democratic process by issuing a directive at odds with New York public policy on marriage,” said Alliance Defense Fund Senior Legal Counsel Brian Raum.

The Arizona-based ADF is involved in lawsuits fighting LGBT issues across the country.

“The governor has no authority to issue directives which conflict with New York’s public policy.  His actions are an assault on the democratic process,” Raum argued in Supreme Court, the lowest level court in New York state.

“The future of marriage should be decided by the legislature, not executives who take matters into their own hands,” Raum argued.

“New Yorkers have a fundamental right to set marriage policy through the legislative process, but the governor has ordered a radical redefinition of marriage without the consent of the governed.  Ignoring the democratic process does not help the government in its duty to promote and encourage strong families.”

NYS attorney’s representing Paterson argued that the governor was within his constitutional rights to issue directives to state agencies over which he has legal authority. They asked the judge to dismiss the case.

The court gave no indication when it might rule.  It is likely the case will be argued up to the Court of Appeal, New York’s highest court.

Paterson issued his directive in May after a midlevel appeals court ruled that a gay couple’s marriage in Canada should be recognized in New York State.

Neither the ruling nor Paterson’s directive allowed for same-sex couples to marry in New York. Both were limited to marriages performed only in California and Massachusetts and in countries which have legalized gay marriage.

In 2006, the New York Court of Appeals, the state’s highest court, ruled that same-sex couples do not have an automatic constitutional right to marry in the state. It said that the issue, however, could be taken up by the Legislature.

Last year, the Democratically-controlled New York State Assembly passed same-sex marriage legislation, but the GOP-controlled Senate has refused to take up the bill.

Among the Republican lawmakers represented by the ADF in the lawsuit is state Assembly minority leader James Tedisco.